ATT13R_17_R-0007_Site_Visit_and_Industry_Questions.docx

N00167-17-R-0007 Amendment 0002 Attachment 13 Site Visit and Industry Questions Updated: 15 August 2017 A Site Visit was conducted on 20 July 2017, attended by:

Solicitation Questions:

1. Question: Reading through the Solicitation for N00167-17-R-0007, the NAICS code associated with the contract is 713930 with a small business standard of $7.5M is this correct?

Answer: The NAICS code is correct.

2. Question: Are there going to be other NAICS codes on Solicitation N00167-17-R-0007 that are acceptable to submit under?

Answer: Only one NAICS code can be assigned.

3. Question: It says set aside N/A on the FBO page, so is it then Full and Open Competition?

Answer: Yes.

4. Reference: Please see section 4.3.5 below regarding Small Business Participation:

Section 4.3.5 Sub factor 1E – Small Business Participation Commitment (Large Business Offerors Only)

4.3.5.1 Subcontracting Goals

Offerors shall input small business subcontracting goals, total small business goals, and total subcontracting goals, to include dollar amount, percentage value, and description of services to be subcontracted over the entire period of performance of the contract.

The goals proposed shall be expressed as a percentage of the total proposed price. The minimum quantitative requirement for small business participation is 20% of the total proposed price. Offerors, however, are encouraged to propose values greater than the minimum.

Question: If the NAICS code is truly 713930 these sections would not apply as all companies would be small business already. Are large businesses able to bid on this contract?

Answer: Yes, offers from large businesses will be accepted and considered.

5. Reference: Section L.4.4.1, page 93 states “Offerors shall identify contract efforts performed within the last three Government fiscal years.” Also Section M.5.2.1, page 109 states “Evaluation will focus only on work experience already performed. Work yet-to-be performed, and work prior to the last three years, will not be considered. In addition, performance data will only be assessed for those references demonstrating at least one year of completed performance prior to the closing date of the solicitation.”

Comment/Question: This short 3 year window of contract efforts unnecessarily limits the number of relevant offerors past performance submissions. Respectfully request that the Government expand the past performance window to 5 years to allow the Government to receive/obtain a more extensive longer term representation of an offerors past performance.

Answer: See Amendment 2 of the solicitation.

6. Reference: Sec L, para 4.4.1, pg 93, “…Offerors shall identify contract efforts performed within the last three Government fiscal years.”

Comment/Question: Does “last” include the current FY2017 resulting in 2015, 16, and 17? Or is it 2014, 15, and 16 and does not include the current FY?

Answer: The last three years include 2017, 2016, and 2015.

7. Reference: Section M.5.2.1, page 109 states “Evaluation will focus only on work experience already performed. Work yet-to-be performed, and work prior to the last three years, will not be considered. In addition, performance data will only be assessed for those references demonstrating at least one year of completed performance prior to the closing date of the solicitation.”

Comment/Question: Granted that work that has not been performed for at least one year will not have a corresponding CPAR available, but relevant performance data (including transition activities) for these contracts would be available to evaluators through past performance questionnaires. Respectfully request that the Government expand the past performance window to to allow the offerors to submit past performance for contracts that have been performed for at least 6 months.

Answer: No, the Government will not make this change to the solicitation.

8. Reference: Section L.4.4.1, page 93 states “Offerors shall identify three past contracts/task orders and at least one contract/task order for each proposed subcontractor effort valued at 10% or greater of its total proposed price for this contract.” However, later on in the section on page 94 it contradicts the 10% requirement by stating “The contracts identified shall demonstrate in-depth knowledge and successful implementation of contracts of similar scope and complexity to the solicitation. Similar scope and complexity means a past performance effort for which the offeror (or subcontractor) performed the types of support efforts identified in the SOW for which the offeror (or subcontractor) provided at least 143,804 man-hours per year”.

Comment/Question: To be relevant, do the contracts have to be “valued at 10% or greater of its total proposed price for this contract” or have “provided at least 143,804 man-hours per year?” Please clarify this inconsistency.

Answer: See Amendment 2 of the solicitation.

9. Reference: Section L 4.4.1, page 94, states “Similar scope and complexity means a past performance effort for which the offeror (or subcontractor) performed the types of support efforts identified in the SOW for which the offeror (or subcontractor) provided at least 143,804 man-hours per year.” And, Section L.4.4.1, page 93 states “Offerors shall identify three past contracts/task orders and at least one contract/task order for each proposed subcontractor effort valued at 10% or greater of its total proposed price for this contract.” Section L.5.2.1, page 109 states “The quality of performance under a past performance reference that that has no relevance to the instant requirement will not be considered in the overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment.” Our research and active participation in the industry indicates that the maritime/waterfront/port operation contracts that include similar SOW work efforts with this magnitude of man-hours across the DOD are very limited. Assuming 143,804 man-hours per year plus ODCs would likely exceed $30M over five years, the number of size-qualified, similar-scope past performance contracts represents around eight total contracts. Half of these eight contracts are to operate a single large vessel and therefore wouldn’t truly qualify for scope similar to the SOW. This leaves at most four total DOD contracts that would qualify as similar scope and magnitude (we can provide this data upon request). With the offeror prime required to possess this level of past performance for three contracts, the competitive field will be very limited and likely result in only one proposal from the incumbent.

Comment/Question: In order to provide an opportunity for a non-incumbent to propose on the effort, will the Government please consider some or all of the following: 1) lower the size threshold for an opportunity to be considered relevant; 2) lower the number of required prime offer past performance submissions from 3 to 1; or 3) allow for non-Waterfront RDT&E contracts that meet the size threshold to be submitted and evaluated.

Answer: Question 1: See Amendment 2 of the solicitation regarding Section L 4.4.1 changes. Question 2: No, the Government will not make this change to the solicitation. Question 3: No, the Government will not make this change to the solicitation.

10. Reference: Section L.3.3.2, pages 89-90 requires the completion of the J-2 Staffing Plan for all proposed employees. Each employee is to be identified by name, SOW task area, seniority level, etc. The Government does provide Historical labor hours for the past 4 years in J-8, but without projected workload data there is no possible way any offer (even the incumbent) can accurately estimate the staffing levels down to the individual person and qualifications for next 5 years of the contract. More importantly, since workload data is not provided how can the Government possibly evaluate the differences in the staffing matrix between offers? In short, it can’t be effectively done because there is really no right answer.

Comment/Question: Respectfully request that the requirement for a completed J-2 for all contract positions be deleted as a requirement.

Answer: No, the Government will not make this change to the solicitation.

11. Reference: Section L.3.3.2, pages 89-90 requires the completion of the J-2 Staffing plan for all proposed employees. L.3.3.2 states “In the event the offeror has not identified a candidate for a proposed task area, include the word “pending” in lieu of an individual’s name. From an evaluation perspective, proposal risk in terms of “technical capability” and “cost realism” increase when candidates have not been identified for proposed task area requirements.”

Comment/Question: This requirement to provide specific details for 60+ positions by name clearly provides an unnecessary, unfair advantage to the incumbent. They are the only bidder that will be able to provide these details by name for all the employees – all other bidders will be unfairly penalized in evaluation for not providing a name. It is common knowledge in industry that a high percentage of non-key personnel always migrate to the new contract awardee. Respectfully request that the J-2 matrix be eliminated from the proposal or at a minimum only be required to be completed for key personnel.

Answer: No, , the Government will not make this change to the solicitation.

12. Reference: Page 94, Section L, 4.4.1. The last sentence of the first paragraph on page 94 states "Similar scope and complexity means a past performance effort for which the offeror (or subcontractor) performed the types of support efforts identified in the SOW for which the offeror (or subcontractor) provided at least 143,804 man-hours per year." Subcontractors will be performing only a limited portion of the contract. As an example, if a subcontractor is tasked and priced to perform only 10% of the work then there is no benefit to the Government in requiring them to submit a past performance that meets the minimum 143,804 hours. Most proposed subcontractors will not have an applicable past performance of such a magnitude and the requirement as it is written would unnecessarily limit competition.

Question: Would the government change this requirement to either eliminate the subcontractor past performance man hour requirement or require that subcontractor past performance submissions meet a minimum amount of hours proportional to the amount of effort they are priced to perform?"

Answer: See Amendment 2 of the solicitation.

13. Question: Section L, 4.3.3.1, 4) Marine Surveyor, requires the Marine Surveyor to hold an Open Water Diver certification and experience conducting underwater marine surveys and underwater photography. As an industry standard, neither of these are required for a Marine Surveyor; they are performed by divers. Request that these requirements be removed from the Marine Surveyor and that an additional key person be added for a Certified Open Water Diver.

Answer: See Amendment 2 of the solicitation.

14. Question: Section L, 4.3.3.1, 6) Program Manager. Under required qualifications it lists a Bachelor's degree from an accredited educational institution in a business or managerial field. Requiring that the degree be in business or in a managerial field restricts bidders from offering a PM who is highly qualified, but possesses a degree in an engineering field. A PM with the requisite 10 years of experience will possess the business and management abilities necessary to effectively oversee and manage this program. Request that the Government change the qualifications to require a Bachelor's degree in either a business, managerial or engineering discipline.

Answer: See Amendment 2 of the solicitation.

15. Question: Section L, page 94, 4.4.1, requires any past performance submitted to show that the contractor has performed at least 143,804 man-hours per year. This requirement unnecessarily restricts competition as very few prime or subcontractors will have relevant past performance that meets the required minimum hours per year. Request that the Government remove the minimum number of hours and instead, evaluate submitted past performances based on the merits of their aggregate experience and performance in the relevant areas and magnitude of the efforts performed. This approach will allow the greatest amount of competition and will provide the Government with the flexibility to select the most competitive and capable offeror available.

Answer: See Amendment 2 of the solicitation.

16. Reference: PWS 3.5, b), 6) pg 18, Program Manager Required qualifications:

Bachelor's degree from an accredited educational institution in a business or managerial field;

A minimum of 10 years of experience in program management; and A minimum of five years of experience with military small watercraft.

Desired qualifications:

Project Management Professional certification Comment/Question: Recommend adding to the BS degree requirement …” or equivalent”. Add 15 years of demonstrable knowledge, skills, training, and experience versus 10 years program management experience and a BS in admin or management. Providing flexibility for the BS requirement will open up a wider and very qualified pool of experienced and successful program managers with Navy acquisition and boat experience.

Answer: See Amendment 2 of the solicitation.

17. Reference: Sec L, para 4.4.1, pg 94, “Similar scope and complexity means a past performance effort for which the offeror (or subcontractor) performed the types of support efforts identified in the SOW for which the offeror (or subcontractor) provided at least 143,804 man-hours per year.”

Comment/Question: Attachment 8 Historical Labor Rates Report illustrates total man-hours per year from 2013 through 2016 as follows: 88,887, 129,726, 115,971 and 112,656. Every year on current contract below the minimum man-hours required for contract past performance. Is the minimum number of man-hours per year 143,804 a mistake?

Answer: See Amendment 2 of the solicitation.

18. Reference: Section L.4.5, page 95 states “Offerors are advised that the estimated Government LOE requirement for the CPFF portion of this effort is 766,690 total man-hours for a five year ordering period... Offerors are not permitted to deviate from the Government’s total estimated LOE or Other Direct Cost (ODC) amounts, as identified within Section B, and deviations from these estimates may render an offeror’s proposal unacceptable for award.” The 766,690 CPFF (CLIN 002) man-hours equates to an average of 153,338 CPFF man-hours per year. However, the Historical labor hours for the previous 4 years do not approach that number, with the largest year being 2014 with 96,228 CPFF man-hours. The RFP does not provide additional anticipated workload load data that an offeror could use to develop this increase in the staffing levels on the contract.

Comment/Question: Please provide additional anticipated workload data that offerors can use to estimate the labor categories and man-hours needed to propose the large 59% increase in CLIN 0002 CPFF hours. If the workload data is not available, recommend that the Government provide their estimated level of effort by labor category for all offerors to use.

Answer: See Amendment 2, Attachment 6 of the solicitation.

19. Reference: Section L instructions for the delivery of proposals addresses only the delivery of proposals by postal or similar carrier. Will the Government allow proposals to be hand delivered? If so, please provide the delivery address and any additional instructions that apply.

Answer: See Amendment 2 of the solicitation.

20. Reference: Is the 30 day transition period described in 3.1.1 the first 30 days of performance, or 30 days prior to contract start date of 1 JAN 18? This would clarify if transition is covered under the contract's POP, or expected to be complete prior to POP.

Answer: See Amendment 2 of the solicitation.

21. 3.Reference: Can the government provide a list of the required ESH documents and records required in 3.1.3 to be maintained?

Answer: See Amendment 2, Attachment 8 of the solicitation for a historical list of documents.

22. Reference: 4. 3.2.3.m refers to items listed in Section 3.4.2. Can the government clarify the items that should be in Section 3.4.2 (there is no such section in the PWS)?

Answer: See Amendment 2 of the solicitation.

23. Reference: Can the government clarify what vehicles are expected to be maintained in a "certified, OEM condition."? The PWS does not list vehicles, nor is there any information in the Attachments.

Answer: Referring to Section 3.2.3 (o), the current list of vehicles is:

Six pickup trucks F-750 4WD flatbed truck 2-½ ton stake body truck Vacuum truck Two semi-trailer trucks

24. Reference: Can the government clarify what (if any) contractor equipment is required to be provided? There is no GFE section to the PWS. Does the government provide all tools and equipment? Answer: See Section C 3.4 for proper personnel safety equipment requirements, other necessary tools and equipment shall be made available for contractor use by the Government.

25. Reference: Will the government provide Navy certification training discussed in 3.4 for Forklift and Crane operations? If not, is industry training in accordance with Navy 583 and P-307 acceptable?

Answer: The contractor is responsible for providing industry training in accordance with NAVSUP 538 for forklift and manlift operators. All of the cranes that the contractor will be operating are non-cab category 3 cranes, and the required training is available online on the Navy Crane Center website.

26. Travel - will any personnel require travel OCONUS? If so, can the government provide historical data for forecasting numbers of personnel requiring Passports?

Answer: No travel outside the Continental United States will be required.

27. Reference: Base Access - Installations are going away from NCACS to DBIDS, can the government clarify the process for access for non CAC holders?

Answer: Contractor employees who regularly perform at building V-47 will be issued CACs. Contractor employees who are not regularly employed at building V-47 will be required to use DBIDS or obtain a day pass.

28. Reference: Key Employees - 5252.237-9106 conflicts with the SCA Non-Displacement of Qualified Workers Clause (52.222-17) - it is very common for experienced and highly skilled workers that do not have management responsibilities to stay on with a new contractor in positions listed as Key Personnel. Use of this clause gives a decided advantage to the incumbent who has had this contract for at least 10 years. As this majority of the work in this contract is based on maintenance services, 52.222-17 provides sufficient coverage to ensure performance. Recommend the government consider reducing the number of "Key Personnel", while retaining the need to provide qualified resumes for engineering and boat captain positions.

Answer: No, the Government will not make this change to the solicitation.

29. Reference: Since FAR 16.301-3(a)(3) does not apply to small business sub-contractors, can their efforts be proposed as FFP hourly wage rates?

Answer: The question is ambiguous and not understood by the Government.

30. Reference: PWS requires signed "letter of intent" with an agreed upon start date and salary. By adding the salary requirement in the letter of intent, incumbent personnel can take offers back to their employer for negotiating purposes revealing proprietary pricing info. Recommend removing the salary requirement.

Answer: No, the Government will not make this change to the solicitation.

31. Reference: Section L Instructions to Offerors, page 79 states “Offerors shall submit four printed copies and one electronic copy (on CD-ROM) of their proposals….”

Comment/Question: Please clarify if we provide one CD-ROM with all volumes or one CD-ROM for each volume.

Answer: One CD-ROM with all volumes included.

32. Reference: Section L.2.6, page 82 states “For those volumes with page limitations, the following, shall not be included in the page count: N00167-17-R-0007, Title/cover pages; Tables of contents; Teaming agreements, letters of intent for Key Personnel and/or subcontractors/consultants, and subcontract agreements; Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluations; Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) and transmittal letters; Proposal cross-reference table; and Glossaries of abbreviations and acronyms.” But Section L 4.3, page 86 states “The cover page, table of contents, Key Personnel resumes, letter(s) of intent (if applicable), teaming/subcontractor agreement(s) (if applicable), Subfactor 1D submission (if applicable), and glossary of abbreviations and acronyms (if included) are excluded from the technical proposal page limitation.”

Comment/Question: The two references above are in conflict with each other concerning the resumes as related to the exclusion from page count in the Technical Volume. Request the Government clarify this conflict.

Answer: See Amendment 2 of the solicitation.

33. Reference: Section L 4.3.3.2 Staffing Plan. RFP states “utilizing Section J, Attachment 2, the staffing plan shall…” Comment/Question: a) Considering the width of the Excel spreadsheet, should the Section J Attachment 2 table be inserted into the proposal document or submitted separately as an Excel file? b) Would the separately attached completed Section J Attachment 2 Excel file be counted in the Volume II – Factor 1, Technical page limitations?

Answer: a)See Section L 4.3.3.2(a). b) Yes.

34. Reference: Section J Attachment 2 Staffing Plan (No Cost).

Comment/Question: Row 1 in the file states Attachment 3 – Staffing Plan (No Cost). Please clarify the correct Attachment number for the Staffing Plan (No Cost) Answer: See Amendment 2 of the solicitation.

35. Reference: Section J Attachment 3 Staffing Plan (With Cost). Row 1 in the file states Attachment 4 – Staffing Plan (With Cost).

Comment/Question: Please clarify the correct Attachment number for the Staffing Plan (With Cost).

Answer: See Amendment 2 of the solicitation.

36. Question: With regards to the degree requirements for the off-site PM, is the government willing to allow a Bachelor’s degree in a different discipline if the proposed candidate possesses current and recent PM and Navy experience that reflect expertise in the areas represented in the Government’s SOW?

Answer: See Amendment 2 of the solicitation.

37. Question: Historical hours do not reflect hours for an off-site PM. Does the government intend to set a baseline for annual PM billable hours?

Answer: No, the Government will not make this change to the solicitation. CLIN 0001 is firm fixed price, and includes the off-site PM’s scope.

Question: Based upon the contract being task order-driven, will the government provide details on FTE versus surge hours by labor category?

Answer: No, the Government will not make this change to the solicitation. Workload information will be provided to the contractor prior to issuing task orders.

38. Question: Is the $7.5M small business standard being used to distinguish between small and large businesses for compliance with Sub-factor 1E (Small Business Participation Commitment)?

Answer: See FAR Clause 52.204-8 in the solicitation.

39. Question: The level of effort in section 5252.216-9122 of 766,690 hours is significantly higher than that referenced in the historical labor hour reports based on a 5 year average, is the 766,690 figure accurate?

Answer: Yes.

40. Question: On the cover page of the SF33 it states to e mail proposals electronically, later in the instructions it calls for mailing the proposals. What is the preferred method?

Answer: See Amendment 2 of the solicitation.

41. Question: If we win this award we intend to lease a facility which meets the requirements. We have several in mind but have not leased the facilities until the award is announced. Is this sufficient as long as we provide description, pictures, addresses of proposed facilities?

Answer: See Section L 4.3.2, Subfactor 1B - Boat Yard Facilities.

42. Question: Does the Government have a requirement as to the size of the facility?

Answer: See Amendment 2 of the solicitation.

43. Reference: Question - In review of the Section L requirement, 4.3.3.1 (page 89 of 111) requires letters of intent for contingent hires with an agreed upon start date and salary. As this is a SCA contract where the Non-Displacement of Qualified Workers laws apply, a letter of intent with salary from incumbent personnel potentially gives the incumbent a huge advantage in knowing our employee pricing. This specification gives the incumbent a decidedly additional favorable advantage over new offerors besides being the incumbent. Additionally, the resume and LOI are part of the Technical response, and any information related to Cost or Pricing is specifically restricted to Volume IV – Cost. In 15 years of contracting, we have never seen a requirement for a letter of intent to include proprietary salary information. Request this requirement be removed from Section L (see below).

Question: “For Key Personnel not currently employed by the offeror (or a proposed subcontractor), the resume shall indicate “pending.” At a minimum, for any Key Personnel not currently employed by the offeror/subcontractor, the offeror shall provide documentary evidence of the individual’s availability to support these requirements in the form of a signed “letter of intent” with an agreed upon start date and salary. Only contingency hires with “letters of intent” will be considered in the evaluation. For follow-on efforts where the offeror is not the incumbent, a proposed plan to hire incumbent personnel is not acceptable without “letters of intent.”

Answer: No, the Government will not make this change to the solicitation.

44. Reference: Section L.4.4.2 on 94 of the RFP states “Utilizing the format specified in Section J, Attachment 5, the offeror shall submit a narrative for each contract effort submitted pursuant to Paragraph 4.4.1 above. All narratives combined shall not exceed 10 pages in length. Each narrative shall contain the following:” The first page of Attachment 5 is Past Performance Data, POCs, and Contract information. Page 2 of Attachment 5 states “Using the space below, provide the following narrative information:”

Comment/Question: Does the 10 page limit on narratives exclude Page 1 of Attachment 5 which includes contractual information only?

Answer: Yes.

45. Reference: Section J Attachments 2 through 7.

Comment/Question: Attachments 2 through 7 have correct file names; however the Attachment number in actual document is incorrect. Please correct Attachment numbers for each.

Answer: See Amendment 2 of the solicitation.

46. Question: In view of the many questions submitted by industry regarding the subject solicitation that will require most, if not all, contractors to modify their RFP response that they have thus far prepared, we respectfully request a 2 week extension for the submission of proposals.

Answer: See Amendment 1 of the solicitation.